<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE rss [<!ENTITY % HTMLlat1 PUBLIC "-//W3C//ENTITIES Latin 1 for XHTML//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml-lat1.ent">]>
<rss version="0.92" xml:base="http://www.campaignmoney.org">
<channel>
 <title>Public Campaign Action Fund - Marks for Earmarking - Comments</title>
 <link>http://www.campaignmoney.org/blog/2008/02/19/marks-for-earmarking</link>
 <description>Comments for &quot;Marks for Earmarking&quot;</description>
 <language>en</language>
<item>
 <title>Marks for Earmarking</title>
 <link>http://www.campaignmoney.org/blog/2008/02/19/marks-for-earmarking</link>
 <description>Earmarks have been a hot topic on the Hill of late, and a go-to target for debates on wasteful government spending.  How do the major candidates for president stack up when it comes to these controversial spending allocations, the ethics around them, and what about the earmarking process should be changed? The &lt;em&gt;Post and Courier&lt;/em&gt; in Charleston, South Carolina, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.charleston.net/news/2008/feb/17/the_candidates_earmarks30919/&quot;&gt;takes a look.&lt;/a&gt;</description>
 <pubDate>Tue, 19 Feb 2008 20:24:54 +0000</pubDate>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
