Doug Hoschek sells the Army's elite Special Forces a T-shirt that resists burning — a feature that can save the lives of soldiers under fire.

He wanted to sell his creation to the Marines, as well. Working out of his Sammamish home, the seasoned garment maker toiled for months preparing to bid.

But Hoschek was stunned to learn recently that another company, InSport International, snagged the T-shirt contracts without having to compete.

InSport had lobbied members of Congress for an "earmark" — federal dollars lawmakers direct to favor seekers, often campaign donors.

Company executives also donated nearly $9,000 to the re-election effort of Rep. David Wu, D-Ore., who sponsored three earmarks for InSport.

...

Earmarks, he said, cheat businesses that play by the rules. They not only deprive the military of getting the best price, he said, but can saddle soldiers with inferior products that politicians handpick.

It's not supposed to work that way. Federal law requires that all military contracts, even earmarks, be offered through competitive bidding. Exceptions are allowed in those few cases in which the military has an urgent need or the product is unique.

But in case after case, The Seattle Times found, earmark contracts were awarded without competition.

Such was the case of a top Pentagon officer, Cheryl Roby, who didn't give a $2 million earmark to a company selected by former California Congressman Randall "Duke" Cunningham.

Cunningham summoned her to his office, scolded her for "not executing my vision," and later tried to get her fired.

As a result of Cunningham's threats, a Roby underling began routinely asking congressional appropriations staffers which company was supposed to be rewarded with each earmark, according to court documents.

Cunningham was convicted in 2005 of taking $2.4 million in bribes in exchange for giving earmarks to certain companies.

A three-word rule change quietly made to Congress’s newly-enacted lobby reform package was recently discovered that significantly reduces disclosure requirements for the earmarks each senator requests.

The new ethics bill, which was signed into law in September, purported to require members of both the House and Senate to make public a signed letter that included the name and address of the intended recipient, or location of any requested earmark.

The final bill, however, contained an exception for members of the Senate. Instead, senators who request earmarks are only required to make public a letter that verifies he or she has “no pecuniary interest” their request

On Friday, Alaska decided the bridge really was going nowhere, officially abandoning the project in Ketchikan that became a national symbol of federal pork-barrel spending.

While the move closes a chapter that has brought the state reams of ridicule, it also leaves open wounds in a community that fought for decades to get federal help.

"We went through political hot water — tons of it — and not just nationally but internationally," Ketchikan-Gateway Borough Mayor Joe Williams said. "We have nothing to show for it."

The $398 million bridge would have connected Ketchikan, on one island in southeastern Alaska, to its airport on another nearby island.

Gov. Sarah Palin said Friday the project was $329 million short of full funding.

U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens and Rep. Don Young, both Republicans, championed the project through Congress two years ago, securing more than $200 million for the bridge between Revillagigedo and Gravina islands.

Under mounting political pressure over pork projects, Congress stripped the earmark — or stipulation — that the money be used for the airport, but still sent the money to the state for any use it deemed appropriate.

Stevens spokesman Aaron Saunders said Friday the senator was interested in how the state ultimately used the money. A spokeswoman for Young said the congressman would have no comment.