Senate Republicans push permanent earmark ban, shifting spending power away from voters' representat
S.Res. 517 — A resolution expressing opposition to congressional spending on earmarks. · Filed by Rick Scott (R-FL) · 3 cosponsors · Introduced Nov 20, 2025 · Referred to committee
Your members of Congress
Enter a ZIP to see where your representative and both senators stood on this bill.
Looked up on this device — your ZIP is never stored on our servers.
What it does
This is a Senate resolution expressing opposition to earmarks—the practice of individual lawmakers directing federal funds to specific projects in their districts or states. The resolution condemns earmarks as wasteful and corrupt, calls for a permanent ban on them, and argues Congress should focus on reducing the national debt instead of funding local pet projects.
Why we flagged it
This is a non-binding Senate resolution expressing a policy position, not legislation that changes law or appropriates funds. It is purely messaging and advocacy, designed to signal Republican opposition to earmarks and frame them as a fiscal/corruption problem.
What the text implies
- A permanent earmark ban would concentrate spending authority in the executive branch and Senate/House leadership, potentially reducing rank-and-file members' ability to direct resources to their constituents and lowering transparency of where money actually goes.
- The resolution conflates earmarks (typically <1% of federal spending) with the entire $38T debt problem, which may be rhetorically effective but analytically misleading—eliminating earmarks would not materially address deficit spending.
- Earmarks, despite their reputation, are often the only mechanism by which members can fund local infrastructure, research, or community projects; a ban may shift those priorities to executive discretion or eliminate them entirely.
Who it affects
Earmarks can fund wasteful local projects that benefit narrow interests, but they also enable direct democratic accountability—voters know which representative brought money home. A blanket ban may reduce pork but could shift spending power entirely to executive agencies and party leadership, reducing transparency. The resolution's framing conflates earmarks with the entire deficit problem, which is analytically misleading.
Named in the bill
U.S. Senate, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Congressional Budget Office, Senate Republicans
Where it stands
3 cosponsors: 3 Republicans.
- Nov 20, 2025 — Referred to Senate Committee on Appropriations · Congress.gov: “Referred to the Committee on Appropriations”
Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.
How this was measured
Analysis — Quorum's AI read the full bill text on Jul 5, 2026; transparency and hidden-provision scores are compared against the median of 16,222 analysed bills.
Status and sponsors — Congress.gov's bill record — actions, committee referrals and cosponsors — loaded nightly. The timeline shows status changes, not every procedural action.
As of — page rendered 2026-10-20.
“Senate Republicans push permanent earmark ban, shifting spending power away from voters' representat” QuorumCivic. https://share.quorumcivic.app/bill/119/sres517 Report an error
The week in bills
One email, Sunday: what Congress passed, what it changed, and who paid.
One link arrives to confirm the address. It is used for this email and nothing else, and every issue carries an unsubscribe link.