In a February 14 Washington Post article, staff writer Paul Kane claimed that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) is “using his blanket opposition to earmarked spending as a regular line of attack” against Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY). But Kane's claim that McCain has a policy of “blanket opposition to earmarked spending” is contradicted by his reporting later in the article that McCain has “not focused” on money being sent to Arizona: “McCain, who has helped lead efforts to strip some earmarks from Senate bills, has not focused on the money headed to his home state. Other Arizona lawmakers secured more than $214 million in pet projects in fiscal 2008 spending bills.”

From the February 14 Washington Post article:

As a campaign issue, earmarks highlight significant differences in the spending philosophies of the top three candidates. Clinton has repeatedly supported earmarks as a way to bring home money for projects, while Obama adheres to a policy of using them only to support public entities.

McCain is using his blanket opposition to earmarked spending as a regular line of attack against Clinton, even running an Internet ad mocking her $1 million request for a museum devoted to the Woodstock music festival. Obama has been criticized for using a 2006 earmark to secure money for the University of Chicago hospital where his wife worked until last year.

[...]

Obama, meanwhile, helped steer $3.4 million to the Rock Island Arsenal for a military fire and police building, and was the sole sponsor of a measure seeking $750,000 for an education initiative at Benedictine University in Illinois.

McCain, who has helped lead efforts to strip some earmarks from Senate bills, has not focused on the money headed to his home state. Other Arizona lawmakers secured more than $214 million in pet projects in fiscal 2008 spending bills.

The candidates “do illustrate the broad spectrum of attitudes toward earmarks in Congress,” said Ryan Alexander, president of Taxpayers for Common Sense.