As previously stated, there is no earmark moratorium. Politico reports on the joint work of Sen. Jim Inhofe, earmark fan, and Sen. John McCain, earmark foe, in finding a work around for approving earmarks:

But in an unexpected twist, longtime earmark apologist Inhofe has quietly scored McCain’s endorsement on a proposal that would allow home-state projects if they are first authorized by Senate committees. It’s a major coup for Inhofe, who has emerged as the most aggressive Republican battling to save earmarks in a year when Congress has effectively banned them.

...

Under the Inhofe-McCain proposal, the definition of earmarks would exempt projects specifically authorized by Senate committees, that meet “funding eligibility criteria” established by the relevant committees or that are created through a competitive-bidding and formula-based process. Earmarks could also be enacted with the support of 75 senators.

I also suggest reading my colleague John Wonderlich's post about a mostly unknown earmark transparency executive order issued by President George W. Bush that is apparently going unenforced.

Sen. Russ Feingold will offer an amendment to the stimulus bill today that would enact most of the earmark reforms embodied in his recently introduced bill, the Fiscal Discipline, Earmark Reform and Accountability Act (S. 162). The legislation, in this case the amendment, would create a 60 vote point of order against earmarks in legislation and conference reports and require all firms receiving federal money through awards, grants, or loans to disclose how much they have spent on lobbyists.

After the jump I've included the text of the amendment:

SA 140. Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself, Mr. MCCAIN, Mrs. MCCASKILL, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mr. BURR, and Mr. COBURN) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 98 proposed by Mr. INOUYE (for himself and Mr. BAUCUS) to the bill H.R. 1, making supplemental appropriations for job preservation and creation, infrastructure investment, energy efficiency and science, assistance to the unemployed, and State and local fiscal stabilization, for fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes; as follows:

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __X. CURTAILING CONGRESSIONAL EARMARKS AND LOBBYING DISCLOSURE.

(a) In General.--Title III of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is amended by adding at the end the following:

``CONGRESSIONAL EARMARKS

``Sec. 316. (a) In General.--On a point of order made by any Senator:

``(1) No unauthorized appropriation may be included in any general appropriation bill.

``(2) No amendment may be received to any general appropriation bill the effect of which will be to add an unauthorized appropriation to the bill.

``(3) No unauthorized appropriation may be included in any amendment between the Houses, or any amendment thereto, in relation to a general appropriation bill.

``(b) Point of Order New Legislation.--

``(1) SENATE MEASURE.--If a point of order under subsection (a)(1) against a Senate bill or amendment is sustained--

``(A) the unauthorized appropriation shall be struck from the bill or amendment; and

``(B) any modification of total amounts appropriated necessary to reflect the deletion of the matter struck from the bill or amendment shall be made.

``(2) HOUSE MEASURE.--If a point of order under subsection (a)(1) against an Act of the House of Representatives is sustained when the Senate is not considering an amendment in the nature of a substitute, an amendment to the House bill is deemed to have been adopted that--

``(A) strikes unauthorized appropriation from the bill; and

``(B) modifies, if necessary, the total amounts appropriated by the bill to reflect the deletion of the matter struck from the bill;

``(c) Point of Order Unauthorized Appropriations in Amendment.--If the point of order against an amendment under subsection (a)(2) is sustained, the amendment shall be out of order and may not be considered.

``(d) Point of Order Unauthorized Appropriations in Amendment Between the Houses.--

``(1) SENATE.--If a point of order under subsection (a)(3) against a Senate amendment is sustained--

``(A) the unauthorized appropriation shall be struck from the amendment;

``(B) any modification of total amounts appropriated necessary to reflect the deletion of the matter struck from the amendment shall be made; and

``(C) after all other points of order under this section have been disposed of, the Senate shall proceed to consider the amendment as so modified.

``(2) HOUSE.--If a point of order under subsection (a)(3) against a House of Representatives amendment is sustained--

(A) an amendment to the House amendment is deemed to have been adopted that-- <pre>[Page: S1451] <strong><a href="http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2009_record&amp;page=S1451&amp;position=all"> <cite>GPO's PDF</cite></a></strong></pre>(i) strikes the unauthorized appropriation from the House amendment; and

``(ii) modifies, if necessary, the total amounts appropriated by the bill to reflect the deletion of the matter struck from the House amendment; and

``(B) after all other points of order under this section have been disposed of, the Senate shall proceed to consider the question of whether to concur with further amendment.

``(e) Other Points of Order.--The disposition of a point of order made under any other rule of the Senate, that is not sustained, or is waived, does not preclude, or affect, a point of order made under subsection (a) with respect to the same matter.

``(f) Supermajority.--A point of order under subsection (a) may be waived only by a motion agreed to by the affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn. If an appeal is taken from the ruling of the Presiding Officer with respect to such a point of order, the ruling of the Presiding Officer shall be sustained absent an affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn.

``(g) Form of Point of Order, Multiple Provisions.--

``(1) IN GENERAL.--Notwithstanding any other rule of the Senate, it shall be in order for a Senator to raise a single point of order that several provisions of a general appropriation bill or an amendment between the Houses on a general appropriation bill violate subsection (a). The Presiding Officer may sustain the point of order as to some or all of the provisions against which the Senator raised the point of order.

``(2) SUSTAINED POINT OF ORDER.--If the Presiding Officer sustains the point of order under paragraph (1) as to some or all of the provisions against which the Senator raised the point of order, then only those provisions against which the Presiding Officer sustains the point of order shall be deemed stricken pursuant to this paragraph.

``(3) MOTION TO WAIVE.--Before the Presiding Officer rules on such a point of order, any Senator may move to waive such a point of order, in accordance with subsection (f), as it applies to some or all of the provisions against which the point of order was raised. Such a motion to waive is amendable in accordance with the rules and precedents of the Senate.

``(4) APPEAL.--After the Presiding Officer rules on such a point of order, any Senator may appeal the ruling of the Presiding Officer on such a point of order as it applies to some or all of the provisions on which the Presiding Officer ruled.

`(h) <em>Definition</em>.--For purposes of this section, the termunauthorized appropriation' means a `congressionally directed spending item' as defined in rule XLIV of the Standing Rule of the Senator--

``(1) that is not specifically authorized by law or Treaty stipulation (unless the appropriation has been specifically authorized by an Act or resolution previously passed by the Senate during the same session or proposed in pursuance of an estimate submitted in accordance with law); or

``(2) the amount of which exceeds the amount specifically authorized by law or Treaty stipulation (or specifically authorized by an Act or resolution previously passed by the Senate during the same session or proposed in pursuance of an estimate submitted in accordance with law) to be appropriated.

``(i) Conference Reports.--

``(1) IN GENERAL.--On a point of order made by any Senator, no unauthorized appropriation may be included in any conference report on a general appropriation bill.

``(2) POINT OF ORDER SUSTAINED.--If the point of order against a conference report under paragraph (1) is sustained--

``(A) the unauthorized appropriation in such conference report shall be deemed to have been struck;

``(B) any modification of total amounts appropriated necessary to reflect the deletion of the matter struck shall be deemed to have been made;

``(C) when all other points of order under this subsection have been disposed of--

``(i) the Senate shall proceed to consider the question of whether the Senate should recede from its amendment to the House bill, or its disagreement to the amendment of the House, and concur with a further amendment, which further amendment shall consist of only that portion of the conference report not deemed to have been struck (together with any modification of total amounts appropriated);

``(ii) the question shall be debatable; and

``(iii) no further amendment shall be in order; and

``(D) if the Senate agrees to the amendment, then the bill and the Senate amendment thereto shall be returned to the House for its concurrence in the amendment of the Senate.

``(3) FURTHER POINTS OF ORDER.--The disposition of a point of order made under any other provision of this section, or under any other Standing Rule of the Senate, that is not sustained, or is waived, does not preclude, or affect, a point of order made under paragraph (1) with respect to the same matter.

``(4) SUPERMAJORITY.--A point of order under paragraph (1) may be waived only by a motion agreed to by the affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn. If an appeal is taken from the ruling of the Presiding Officer with respect to such a point of order, the ruling of the Presiding Officer shall be sustained absent an affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn.

``(5) SINGLE POINT OF ORDER.--Notwithstanding any other rule of the Senate, it shall be in order for a Senator to raise a single point of order that several provisions of a conference report on a general appropriation bill violate paragraph (1). The Presiding Officer may sustain the point of order as to some or all of the provisions against which the Senator raised the point of order. If the Presiding Officer so sustains the point of order as to some or all of the provisions against which the Senator raised the point of order, then only those provisions against which the Presiding Officer sustains the point of order shall be deemed stricken pursuant to this subsection. Before the Presiding Officer rules on such a point of order, any Senator may move to waive such a point of order, in accordance with paragraph (4), as it applies to some or all of the provisions against which the point of order was raised. Such a motion to waive is amendable in accordance with the rules and precedents of the Senate. After the Presiding Officer rules on such a point of order, any Senator may appeal the ruling of the Presiding Officer on such a point of order as it applies to some or all of the provisions on which the Presiding Officer ruled.''.

(b) Lobbying on Behalf of Recipients of Federal Funds.--The Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 is amended by adding after section 5 the following:

``SEC. 5A. REPORTS BY RECIPIENTS OF FEDERAL FUNDS.

``(a) In General.--A recipient of Federal funds shall file a report as required by section 5(a) containing--

``(1) the name of any lobbyist registered under this Act to whom the recipient paid money to lobby on behalf of the Federal funding received by the recipient; and

``(2) the amount of money paid as described in paragraph (1).

`(b) <em>Definition</em>.--In this section, the termrecipient of Federal funds' means the recipient of Federal funds constituting an award, grant, or loan.''.

John McCain and Russ Feingold are putting the old team back together to push for earmark reform in the Senate. Joining the old reformers are young guns Claire McCaskill, Tom Coburn, and Lindsey Graham. CongressDaily (subscription required) details what the reform package will look like:

[T]he measure would allow individual senators to raise points of order against unauthorized earmarks in appropriations bills. Earmark backers would need 60 votes to overcome the objection and the cost of the bill would be reduced by the amount of the earmark.

The measure also requires appropriations and authorizing conference reports to be electronically searchable for 48 hours before the Senate considers the conference reports and requires that recipients of federal funds disclose payments to registered lobbyists.

This is a big improvement over the current earmark process. While the Sunlight Foundation believes that all legislation should be available online for at least 72 hours before a vote, the 48-hour proposal is a step in the right direction. Making the bills searchable is an incredibly important step as thumbing through appropriations legislation is cumbersome.

Still to be determined is what would be disclosed for each individual earmark. Are recipients included? What else must be listed? Also, will the new reform team try to extend their reform package to cover the newly released rules for earmark request disclosure?

Sen. McCain, can you hear me now? Sen. Stevens pays for his own lunch like a big boy. And Rep. Rob Bishop of Utah continues his annual tradition of earmarking funds for his biggest campaign contributors. That and more in today's news:

The Atlantic's Joshua Green takes a look at the Verizon and AT&T cell phone tower plans for Sen. John McCain's ranch and determines that the defenses offered by the companies and the McCains are simply not sufficient. The excuse for the now-derailed permanent installation of cell phone towers at the McCain ranch in Sedona was that Cindy McCain had made an independent request for cell service. Of course, the rapid and costly effort undertaken by the two companies had nothing to do with her husband's public role as a United States Senator and possible presidential candidate. Except that Verizon referred to the Sedona ranch, not as Cindy McCain's ranch, but as "John McCain’s cabin." Green writes, "So while Cindy McCain may indeed have requested the tower over the web like an ordinary millionaire rancher with spotty phone reception, Verizon was well aware that she was anything but that."

Sen. Ted Stevens emphatically denied any wrongdoing as he took the stand yesterday in a federal corruption trial in which the senator is accused of filing false statements on his personal financial disclosure reports. Sen. Stevens stated outright that, "I don't allow people to buy my lunch or buy my dinner; wherever I am, I pay my bills." Prosecutors have sought to show that the Alaska oil company VECO, headed by Stevens friend Bill Allen, paid for renovations to Stevens' house in Girdwood, Alaska and Stevens and Allen colluded to hide the expenses by filing false disclosures. Stevens' examination continues today.

Utah Rep. Rob Bishop has an annual tradition: earmark hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars in earmarks to ES3, a company operating at Hill Air Force Base and then attend an August fundraiser thrown by ES3 after the earmarks are secured. This year, Rep. Bishop secured $800,000 in earmarks for ES3 whose employees have generously donated $22,000 in August of this year to Bishop's reelection bid. Over the past five years, Rep. Bishop has secured $9.8 million for ES3.

Sunlight's Nancy Watzman has the final disclosures for the party convention committees over at Party Time. Democrats raised $60,966,482 for their convention, while Republicans raised $51,229,299 for theirs.

Open Secrets now has lobbyist campaign contributions available in their lobbying database. The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 required the disclosure of lobbyist campaign contributions for the first time.

Open Congress' Donny Shaw continues his excellent series of posts comparing the legislative achievements of John McCain and Barack Obama by using actual data rather than stump speeches and press releases. Today, Donny is looking at the two candidates' voting records. Hurray, factual data comparisons!

And for something slightly different, here's a great article from Reason explaining, by way of Cindy McCain's beer distributor fortune, how the government aids and subsidizes certain parts of the beer, wine, and liquor industry, in the process raising the price of that frothy cold one waiting for you at that happy hour around the corner.

Senators get their own cell phone towers installed, don't pay for it. Rep. Tim Mahoney continues to sink in yet another installment in "When Sleeping Around Goes Wrong." Rep. Rick Renzi tries to get the 35 criminal counts against him dismissed. This is today's news:

The Washington Post released an excellent investigative piece showing that Verizon and AT&T were both working to install cell phone towers to provide service for Sen. John McCain's Sedona, AZ ranch beginning last year, at a time when McCain's presidential hopes seemed dim. Sen. McCain sits on the Senate Commerce Committee and the installation of free cell phone towers by corporations under the oversight of that same committee certainly counts as a conflict of interest. Also troubling is the ability of the McCain's to hide this seeming in-kind contribution from their personal financial disclosures because it was ostensibly made at the request of Sen. McCain's wife, Cindy. The Senator and his wife keep their finances separate and thus he does not have to fully disclose her financial activities on his annual personal financial disclosure. While the two telecommunications giants eventually abandonded the idea of permanently installing towers, they both provide portable towers at no-cost to the Senator's ranch.

Rep. Rick Renzi, under indictment on 35 counts related to a land swap, accused the government of taping conversations with other members of Congress and bringing the corruption indictment against him for political reasons. Renzi also filed for a dismissal of the charges against him on the grounds that they violate the Speech and Debate Clause. Renzi is under indictment for allegedly using his position in Congress to push through a land swap that eventually netted him $700,000. Apparently, the congressman abides by the motto of the William Jefferson school of congressional corruption, "If you do it in an official capacity, they can't investigate." I don't think that the Speech and Debate Clause was enacted as a way to make congressional offices into corruption safe rooms.

In worsening news for Rep. Tim Mahoney, an FBI investigation into his affairs is expanding to include the second affair with a high level county official, which Mahoney admitted to today, to determine whether he steered federal emergency funds to her county. An aide close to his campaign also announced that Rep. Mahoney may not seek reelection. If this is the case, all replacements should quickly be vetted to make sure that they don't carry on the Foley-Mahoney curse.

• The Detroit Big Three are seeking $50 billion in government loans. Their big lobbying push begins as Congress comes back in session this week. The Wall Street Journal looks at the lobbying numbers. This gives a whole new meaning to "Put Your Hands Up For Detroit."
• As if Sen. Ted Stevens needed any more trouble. Roll Call reveals that a lobbying firm specializing in procuring earmarks for defense companies hired someone to handle fundraising and money management for Sen. Stevens' PAC when Stevens was chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Of course, the lobbying firm's receipts increased by 400%, moving from $1 million annually in 2002 to $4 million in 2007.
• Presidential hopeful John McCain is pulling in corporate executive contributions at a steady pace after trailing in the CEO money race to his Democratic opponent, Barack Obama.

Since the presidential race has turned into an episode of MTV Cribs - next up, web ads with seizure inducing editing of million dollar homes - I figured that it would be worth while to look at the personal financial disclosures of John McCain and Barack Obama to see what information we can find on their houses.

Oh wait, what's that? Personal financial disclosure rules don't require the listing of residential properties. That's why no one knew about Chris Dodd's favorable mortgage from Countrywide or Rep. Laura Richardson's two foreclosures.

Looking at Obama and McCain's form I can see that some of McCains eight to eleven residential properties are listed under Cindy McCain's name while Obama's home is not listed. Here are some of the ones listed on the McCain financial disclosure:

Residential Real Estate Held for Investment, Coronado, CA - Over $1 million

Sedona Property, Cornville, AZ (Two Parcels. Parcel 1: Residence and Guest House. Parcel 2: Guest House.) - Over $1 million

Those are only two residential property listings that appear in both candidates financial disclosures. There are few proposals flying around Congress to require home disclosure on personal financial disclosures. Perhaps they should address this.

On another personal financial disclosure related topic, I noticed the Mark Nicholas used our Fortune 535 site to compare the net worth of Barack Obama and John McCain. Unfortunately, the site uses as its most recent filing, the 2007 report, which represents the year 2006. This was prior to the huge profits made by Obama through royalties from his latest book. So, if you want to get the most recent average net worth, you'd have to look at his 2008 report (covering 2007), in which he reports well over a million in assets.

John McCain is another story. McCain is the only member of Congress who still checks a box that lists asset value at "Over $1 million". He does this under an exemption rule allowing the filer to not identify the actual range, over $1 million, if the asset is held by a spouse or dependent child. I should reiterate that McCain is the only member of Congress who claims this exemption and fills out the "Over $1 million" box for many assets. John Kerry, Dianne Feinstein, Jane Harman, and Nancy Pelosi all list the highest accurate value range for their spouse's large holdings; John McCain does not. Considering this, John McCain, when combined with the actual value of Cindy McCain's holdings, is worth much more than the amount we extracted from his personal financial disclosures for Fortune 535.

Bottom line: Obama worth more than listed and McCain worth way more.

Twice this year I've been astonished to see Ralph Reed's mug appear in election coverage. After the New Hampshire primaries the man who received over $4 million in Indian casino cash from Jack Abramoff was talking politics on CNN. Viewer reaction was intensely negative and CNN, embarrassed, canned him. While his campaign is not answering questions about it, it looks like John McCain decided that it wasn't the best idea to appear at a fundraiser with a participant in one of the biggest corruption scandals in history. Or perhaps Reed decided that he didn't need to be an undue distraction.

Either way, smart move.

On his campaign Web site, John McCain laments that "wasteful special interest subsidies are not moving us toward an energy solution." In particular, McCain tees off on "subsidies, tariffs and price supports that focus exclusively on corn-based ethanol" - one of Barack Obama's favored fuels.

McCain, however, has become a vocal advocate for the oil industry, which is itself heavily subsidized despite enjoying the fruits of soaring crude prices. Doug Koplow, who's been researching energy subsidies for 20 years and is president of Earth Track, says that this "very large, very sophisticated, profitable industry" can pay its own freight. "It can pay for its own R&D. It can pay its own cleanup costs," Koplow observes. "So why are you subsidizing it at all?"

Just how big is the subsidy? It's hard to quantify with much precision, given the secrecy surrounding corporate tax returns and other barriers to transparency. Friends of the Earth took the most recent stab at it in a July report, "Big Oil, Bigger Giveaways". The environmental group calculated that the oil and gas industry will receive "more than $32.9 billion in handouts from taxpayers over the next five years." This includes "tax benefits, royalty relief [forgiveness of royalties], research and development subsidies and accounting gimmicks that benefit the oil industry."

Koplow believes the Friends of the Earth number is low because it doesn't include the cost of defending oil shipping lanes in the Persian Gulf, the cost to own and operate the stockpile of oil in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, or accelerated depreciation benefits, which allow companies to write off investments in pipelines, drilling equipment and other infrastructure more quickly than the stuff actually wears out. His total subsidy figure for oil and gas: $39 billion a year.

Using defense spending data from the mid-1990s (adjusted for inflation), and assuming that only about a third of this spending goes toward protecting shipping lanes, Koplow estimates the value of the defense subsidy alone at nearly $20 billion a year - not including the cost of the Iraq war.

In fairness, Koplow notes that - on a per-unit-of-energy-produced basis - oil isn't the most generously subsidized portion of the energy sector. It's eclipsed by both ethanol and nuclear power, he says. Obama has embraced the former, touting the biofuel throughout the primary campaign. "Mr. Obama is running as a reformer who is seeking to reduce the influence of special interests," Larry Rohter reported in the New York Times in June. "But like any other politician, he has powerful constituencies that help shape his views. And when it comes to domestic ethanol, almost all of which is made from corn, he also has advisers and prominent supporters with close ties to the industry . . ."

McCain, for his part, is a friend not only of big oil - he opposes new taxes on the industry, Obama favors them - but has called for the construction of 45 nuclear reactors by 2030. Critics say that no reactor will be built without massive subsidies; the Department of Energy has started down that road with a new loan guarantee program that sets aside up to $18.5 billion for nuclear construction. Here's a fact sheet on both candidates' energy policies from Reuters.

Stay tuned for more from Sunlight on the issue of government subsidies.

Really? Not to pick on John McCain too much, but couldn't you find someone in Atlanta to host a fundraiser who didn't receive $4 million from Jack Abramoff to run a phony religious campaign against an Indian casino that was actually organized by another Indian casino to reduce competition?

McCain headed the Senate investigation that uncovered these payments. I know he has to raise money and patch up relationships in Republican quarters that have opposed him in the past. But Ralph Reed? Really?

Even CNN was embarrassed after they let Ralph Reed appear on television to cover the New Hampshire primaries.

The guy was involved in one of the biggest corruption scandals in American history. And it isn't even history yet, the investigation is ongoing. I hear Bob Ney's getting out of jail, maybe he can host a fundraiser too.