Thanks for the link, Ami.
Looks to me like in order to prove Palin's complicity in any Federal earmarks, you'd have to prove that Palin asked an Alaskan Senator or Representative to get the ear-mark. Difficult even if there's a paper trail, and tougher still if there's not.
Also, I understand one of the hallmarks of the ear-mark is its roundabout or stealthy way of being enacted. No Bill is passed that says, let's give $30 million to the Alaskan Treasury to finance the building of a bridge. Instead, an unrelated Bill (say, a Bill to Penalize Selling Software to Iran) is drawn up and the earmark hunter insists on a clause in the Act that says,"Let's take $30 of the funds allocated to this project and transfer it to Alaska to build a bridge." IN fact, the earmark hunter tells the sponsors of the Bill to Penalize Selling Software to Iran, "If you don't put this clause in your draft Bill, I'll line up a bunch of legislators who'll vote against it." Or, "I'll see to it that it never gets out of committee."
