The Associated Press reports that Peoria-based Firefly Energy, Inc., has “landed a $2.5 million contract to develop its new generation of lighter, more powerful batteries for the military.”  Firefly is a pretty new company, founded in May 2003.  They use technology developed by Caterpillar to replace the lead plates found in batteries with a lighter, longer-lasting, and more ecologically-friendly material.

The part of the AP report I found interesting, though, was this:

LaHood said he secured Firefly’s contact through an addition to the defense bill known as an “earmark.” The practice has drawn criticism during recent debate over ethics reform because opponents say it breeds corruption, providing millions of dollars for lawmakers’ pet projects.

“Earmarks” are getting a lot of press these days. Congressman Joel Hefley (R-Colo.) gave his “Porker of the Week” award to Congress for earmarks in the federal transportation bill for “the bridge to nowhere“ last November. The bridge in question costs $320 million and connects the town of Ketchikan (pop. 8900) with the island of Gravina (pop. 50) in Alaska. And it was John McCain (R-Ariz.) who said that earmarks “breed corruption.”

Being a curious person by nature, I wanted to find out how these dastardly “earmarks” get into bills in the first place. It appears no one knows except congresspersons and lobbyists. But somehow, through some secret process, members of Congress can direct money to individual companies by inserting these “earmarks” into huge appropriations bills. The earmarks are not debated and thus need not be defended.

So, I guess the question we have to ask ourselves is, do the ends justify the means?  Obviously this military contract for Firefly is good for Peoria, but I imagine the bridge in Ketchikan is good for the economy there, too.  Where do we draw the line?