Project of The Sunlight Foundation Project of Taxpayers for Common Sense

PLEASE NOTE: EarmarkWatch is an experimental distributed research project that contains data for Fiscal Year 2008 earmarks from the House and Senate Labor-HHS-Education bills and the 2008 House Defense Bill.

It does not contain 2009 earmarks. Congress released earmark disclosures for an omnibus bill that included three of the twelve regular appropriations bills—Defense, Homeland Security, and Military Construction/Veterans Affairs—for fiscal year 2009.

A downloadable spreadsheet listing those earmarks is available from Taxpayers for Common Sense (xls).

“Classified Amount to Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) for Center for Innovative Geospatial Technology”

Sponsor:  

Citizen Contributed Data (94% Complete)

Recipient Web Site:  Recipient Address:  (Flag)
380 New York Street
Redlands, CA
92373-8100
Recipient address as provided by Sponsor(s): (courtesy of Taxpayers for Common Sense)
380 New York Street Redlands, CA
Short Description of Recipient Organization: 
Started in 1969, now with around 4000 employees. Privately held.
Are Top Personnel Listed on the Site? 
No
Is the Project Mentioned on the Site? 
Yes
Does the Recipient have Federal Contracts? 
Yes
Link to the Recipient's Federal Contracts (Fedspending.org):  Does the Recipient have Federal Grants? 
Yes
Link to the Recipient's Federal Grants (Fedspending.org):  Have employees of the recipient collectively contributed more than $20,000 to candidates for federal office during the current and last election cycle?: 
No
Does a sponsoring member take credit? 
No
Did the recipient hire federal lobbyists? 
Yes
Research contributed by:
kbal11


Comments, notes, additional research...

Why is the amount classified?

posted October 2, 2007 at 7:26 p.m.

Bill_Allison wrote:

That's a good question. There's another geospatial project -- mapping China, I think -- that's also classified. Here's that earmark:

http://www.earmarkwatch.org/earmark/40817/

posted October 3, 2007 at 10:37 a.m.

aphilp wrote:

Bill_Allison wrote:

About classified earmarks: I should add that a number of Defense earmarks are classified as to the amount, and I imagine some are left out of the budget altogether (if I'm not mistaken, Randy "Duke" Cunningham steered "classified" earmarks to MZM Corp. to hide even from his fellow committee members what he was up to)>

posted October 4, 2007 at 10:38 a.m.

kbal11 wrote:

Something interesting I noticed... out of $72 million in federal contracts in 2006, $40 million of them were not competed. You can see that at the first fedspending link up above.

posted October 19, 2007 at 1:09 a.m.

kbal11 wrote:

Need to search for 'Environmental Systems Research Institute' not ESRI to get it to show up in lobbying database. I missed this the first time around

Of note: hired Copeland, Lowery & Jacquez every year 2000-2006. Started hiring Innovative Federal Strategies as well in 2006.

posted October 19, 2007 at 10:46 p.m.

mschim83 wrote:

There is no reason an earmark should ever be classified.

posted November 2, 2007 at 12:23 p.m.

chromantix wrote:

mschim83 wrote:
"There is no reason an earmark should ever be classified."

Agreed. If this is a classified project, the funds for it should be vetted and processed through the standard defense budgeting mechanism, not an earmark.

Nothing wrong with classifying amounts required to fund certain gov/mil projects, but this is the wrong way to go about it.

posted November 16, 2007 at 1:57 a.m.

Sandy wrote:

A legitimate good cause or just another way to hide spending.

posted January 24, 2008 at 1:10 a.m.

MizJesster wrote:

Here's yet another with one "classified amount":
http://earmarkwatch.org/earmark/41933/

posted February 13, 2008 at 2:20 a.m.

scarls wrote:

Is ESRI doing truly innovative geospatial technology relative to the proliferation of geospatial startups that we see at where 2.0 and vancouver's geospatial conference? It seems, that geospatial technologies could benefit from things like the DARPA award, since ESRI isn't the only player anymore. Making the amount "classified" is wrong.

posted September 27, 2008 at 11:46 a.m.



Sign In or Register to contribute research or to add a comment.
House Bills Senate Bills
*View and navigate the FY08 House Defense Earmarks on a map
Get a glimpse of what's going on at Earmark Watch:

Site Activity
680 researched!