This was not the bridge to nowhere:
Palin, in an interview with ABC News anchor Charles Gibson, drew a distinction between “earmark abuse” and the spending requests that she has authorized for the state of Alaska. Gibson, noting that the state had asked for money to study the genetics of harbor seals and mating habits of crabs, asked: “Isn’t that exactly the kind of thing that John McCain is objecting to?”
Palin replied that those requests have been submitted through state fish and game and wildlife agencies and by state universities.
“Those research requests did come through that system, but wanting it to be in the light of day, not behind closed doors, with lobbyists making deals with Congress to stick things in there under the public radar,” she said. “That’s the abuse that we’re going to stop.”
“but wanting it to be in the light of day, not behind closed doors, with lobbyists making deals with Congress to stick things in there under the public radar,”
Until the media equated all requests for federal funds, this was the definition of earmarks. My understanding is that an “earmark” is generally some unrelated funding slipped into an unrelated bill hoping that it will pass and be signed without anyone noticing. I suppose any state’s request for federal funding can become an “earmark”, but it is not an earmark until congress members make it so.