Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) is running for Senate on this sanitized version of earmarks, banking on the idea these locally directed spending projects have been rehabilitated with the public.
Getty Mario Tama/Getty Images

Now, Schiff is running for Senate on this sanitized version of earmarks, banking on the idea these locally directed spending projects have been rehabilitated with the public.

In a written statement, the congressman said he was proud to have brought millions of dollars back to his Southern California district to combat homelessness and the housing affordability crisis, provide mental health and substance abuse treatment and invest in military technology.

Schiff pointed out that Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, herself a former House Democrat, has asked her former colleagues to request via earmark funding for homelessness and housing. Bass has endorsed Rep. Barbara Lee, a longtime House Democrat, in the Senate contest to succeed Feinstein.

“Our next senator must continue to fight for these resources — hundreds of millions over the course of a single Senate term — because California families need a leader who will deliver results, not mere talking points,” Schiff said.

He’s taken that stance one step further and singled out Porter over her opposition to earmarks; Schiff ran Facebook ads that link to a news report about Porter’s refusal to seek them. And he isn’t the only California candidate to do so. Lee also has questioned Porter for standing against earmarks.

But the Schiff-Porter rift has stood out given their dominance in fundraising and polls in the primary for the seat. Under the state’s election rules, the top-two finishers in March regardless of party, advance to the November runoff. Last week, a Porter senior adviser told POLITICO the congresswoman would not seek any earmarks if elected to the Senate.

Schiff’s moves prompted POLITICO to examine his own record of for-profit earmarks. In addition to the PMA Group dollars he raised, Schiff also received donations from other companies for which he secured earmarks. In fiscal year 2008, Schiff guided nearly a third of his earmarks to for-profit companies that were run by campaign donors.

— Schiff directed $1 million to Pasadena-based Eureka Aerospace, which was developing military technology to stop vehicles that ignored checkpoints. Eureka Aerospace CEO James Tatoian contributed $24,600 to Schiff between 2006 and 2016. Others in Tatoian’s household gave another $9,950 through 2020. His only other federal contributions in recent years went to former Republican Sen. Martha McSally of Arizona, a retired Air Force colonel and former pilot.

— Schiff channeled $1 million to Tanner Research Inc. of Monrovia for detecting IEDs. CEO John Tanner donated $15,800 to him from 2003 to 2012.

— Schiff got an $800,000 earmark for Orbits Lightwave Inc. for an ultra stable coherent laser project. Yaakov Shevy, Orbits Lightwave’s co-founder and president, donated $2,500 to him over his time in Congress and executive Katrin Saroukhanian gave $1,200 from 2007 to 2010.

— Schiff also secured $492,000 for Superprotonic for solid acid fuel cell research. Co-founder Calum Chisholm of Pasadena and executive Sami Mardini of Duarte combined to donate $1,500 to Schiff in 2007 and 2008.

In response to questions, Schiff’s spokesperson Samayoa said the for-profit earmarks Schiff received went to worthy causes like weapons systems to protect troops and to foster economic growth and innovation.

“At the heart of it, earmarks are a way for a member of Congress to literally bring home the bacon and take care of their communities,” said Murshed Zaheed, a Democratic strategist in California and earmark supporter who worked for Rep. Louise Slaughter and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid during the height of the debate over targeted member spending.

“If Adam Schiff brought home earmarks that benefited his communities, that’s great. I also think Schiff and everybody else should be transparent about their earmarks. If you got nothing to hide, you got nothing to hide.”

POLITICO could not analyze many of Schiff’s earmarks or possible corresponding donations because the public record of dollars that flowed to companies is extremely limited. Schiff’s campaign declined to provide the list of earmarks from between 2001 and 2007, contending they didn’t have one. Schiff refused a Los Angeles Daily News request to reveal his projects when pressed in 2007.

California lawmakers and their aides at the time gave several reasons for the secrecy, including not wanting to offend requestors they couldn’t accommodate, and Schiff himself in 2006 contended it was time for more disclosure by bemoaning “late-night, backroom deals.”

It’s those memories of the days of rampant earmarking that Porter has tried to tap into, relentlessly attacking earmarks since they arose as an unlikely point of tension in a Senate race in which the contenders mostly align on policy. She argued that instead of “neutral experts” identifying where the needs are greatest, earmarks allow elected representatives to choose projects for their own reasons.

That puts her in the camp of earmark abolitionists, who view them as bad policy and optics.

“You’d be very hard pressed to show me how earmarks have made this Congress more functional than the Congress in the moratorium years,” Ellis, of Taxpayers for Common Sense, said. “I don’t think you can.”

And yet, Schiff may be on to something in his campaign strategy of highlighting his more recent earmarks to demonstrate effectiveness. Celinda Lake, a pollster working for another Democratic Senate candidate, Bay Area tech executive and investor Lexi Reese, said congressionally directed spending is attractive to voters at a time when Washington is synonymous with intransigence. “Earmarks are testing very positive because people want something tangible delivered to them for a change,” Lake said.

Others pointed to recent races to argue there’s little evidence suggesting voters are in the mood to reward politicians for doling out earmarks — or to punish them for being part of the old system, for that matter.

Jeff Millman, who managed Feinstein’s last reelection campaign against fellow Democrat Kevin de Le?n in 2018, largely dismissed the issue as “obscure.”

But, Millman added of the contenders’ differing approaches, “Maybe they can make it part of a broader narrative about their different leadership styles and create a contrast for voters.”