Much has been written about voter angst and the anti-incumbent, anti-Washington sentiment. The electorate’s wrath, however, hasn’t shown up in the primaries. Just seven defeats out of the 346 primary contests so far (assuming trailing Sen. Murkowski (R-AK) loses after absentee ballots are counted). One curious fact though: five of the defeated incumbents were members of a pretty exclusive Congressional club – the appropriations committees . Depending on what November holds, this may augur a change in Washington’s spending culture.

The appropriators are the lawmakers who hold the nation’s checkbook. They dole out cash to various programs and projects, both big and small, across the land and incidentally, more than a few in their backyard. Because of their ability to rain earmarked manna from heaven on their district or state, these lawmakers have come to be considered bulletproof at the ballot box. Getting loads of campaign cash from supplicant industries doesn’t hurt either. But the ready made publicity tool of touting spending on home state goodies may not be able to bail politicians out when the electorate is antsy about deficits and the economy.

Many of the fallen lawmakers already had problems. Rep. Mollohan (D-WV) was still under the ethical cloud of a federal investigation. Sen. Specter (D-PA) had been an elected Republican for 44 years until switching parties last year. And Rep. Kilpatrick (D-MI) had stood behind her son who as Mayor of Detroit was convicted of lying under oath. But Sens. Bennett (R-UT) and Murkowski may have only been guilty of being out of step with the electorate. In most cases and most years, these lawmakers would be able to point to the money they brought home as reason enough to send them back to Washington. This year, it wasn’t enough.

Members of the appropriations committees were involved in 16% of the primary contests so far this year, yet they represent 70% of the losses. Admittedly, seven is a pretty small sample size, but it is telling nonetheless. Put another way, only 2% of sitting lawmakers have lost their primaries thus far, which according to University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato is in line with the 40 year average. But 9% of the appropriators running in primaries lost. And if you add in the three appropriators who failed in their bids for higher office, that number kicks up to 14%.

It is conventional Washington wisdom that pet projects are a Congressman’s ace-in-the-hole for getting support back home. But if earmarks equal votes, these appropriators should be unassailable. Yet clearly in some cases the shorthand of constituent service through spending hasn’t worked. More anecdotal evidence of a shift – challengers are making campaign promises to not seek earmarks.

In fact, earmarks have become such a dirty word that lawmakers are coming up with euphemisms to obscure them. First, it was “Congressionally Directed Spending Items,” but now it is “targeted local investments.”

Instead of re-branding, how about reform? Instead of the endless game of pay-to-play and the constant chase of the earmarked dollar, we’d like to see funding allocated in competitive, merit-based or formula systems. Congress should enact legislation creating one-stop shopping, cradle-to-grave tracking of earmarks. And earmarks shouldn’t be allowed for campaign contributors. These are just a few items that should be taken care of at the start of the 112th Congress.

But let’s be clear. Rumors of the appropriations committees' demise are premature, to say the least. The committees will be experiencing dramatic turnover next year due to losses and retirements, but there will still be a long line of lawmakers who want to gain control of the nation’s checkbook. We just hope they figure out that they need to write the checks a little differently.