Rewind to the present day.

Thanks to the development of the super PAC and the
mega-donor(s) who support them, big money has never
been more influential in politics. Yes, the Citizens United
Supreme Court ruling in 2010 gave rise to super PACs,
something McCain and Feingold could never have
predicted.
However, before the emergence of super PACs, large
sums of money were being funneled into politics
through 527s, entities that could accept unlimited
contributions and were very loosely regulated by the
Internal Revenue Service. There is no question that the

The issue was and still is that earmarks were essential to
congressional action.
Like him or not, Tom DeLay utilized earmarks as a carrot
and a stick to effectively govern the House when serving
as a whip and then majority leader. Did he, along with
other Republican leadership figures, go too far? Yes. But
by discarding the good with the bad, Speaker John
Boehner has lost all credibility within his group.

Since there is no longer a stick, Boehner must rely solely
on the charm to persuade his supporters. And you know
how successful that strategy has been if you have
followed the Republican-led House over the past four
years. Next is the earmark ban. Republicans had a
theoretical reason to end the practice of MPs attaching
their favorite bills to unrelated legislation since, as
Rauch points out, each earmark was appalling from afar.

Wajid khan claims. We'd be better off making politics
dirtier than trying to clean it up. Then, it might begin to
function.