PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Nov 15, 2010
Earmark Reform and Federal Spending Transparency and Accountability Act of 2011 - Amends the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to prohibit, between January 1 of an odd-numbered year and December 31 of the next even-numbered year, an earmark beneficiary from making contributions aggregating more than $5,000 to any requesting candidate with respect to such earmark beneficiary. Defines "requesting candidate" as any Senator or Member who requested a congressionally directed spending item, limited tax benefit, or limited tariff benefit (earmark) which benefits the earmark beneficiary.
Prohibits the employees of the personal staff of a Member of Congress, except for one designee, from attending a political fund raiser held on the Member's behalf.
Requires the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives each to post on the respective public website a link to the earmark database maintained by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires the head of each federal department and agency to post on the respective public website a link to a searchable database that lists each contract, grant, cooperative agreement, and other expenditure made by the department or agency.
Amends Rule XLIV (Congressionally Directed Spending and Related Items) of the Standing Rules of the Senate to require a Senator requesting an earmark in any legislation or an accompanying joint statement of managers to certify in the required written statement to the chairman and ranking member of the committee of jurisdiction that the earmark recipient is qualified to handle the project.
Requires the Comptroller General, in an annual report to Congress, to use the OMB database to: (1) randomly select a percentage of each of the programs and projects funded through earmarks in the preceding fiscal year; (2) audit each selected one; and (3) provide a detailed accounting of how, if it does so, the earmark contributes to an already existing program or project.
People & committees
Sen. Inhofe, James M. [R-OK] · R–OK
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S7902-7907)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 14, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.3939 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.3939 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.3939 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.3939 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.