Conressional earmarking is a $30 billion a year business and while lawmakers claim the spending goes to benefit their districts, it also has a funny way of benefitting major campaign donors. The Christian Science Monitor looks at the growing controversy around it.  Congressional spending on pet projects - "earmarking" has been on a steady rise through the last two decades. Now a flurry of scandal surrounding the earmarking process is bringing greater attention to the apparent bribery (both legal and illegal) the system makes possible. The stories are leaking out: first it was Duke Cunningham's bribery conviction, then word of an investigation into earmarks steered by House Appropriations Committee Chair Jerry Lewis (R-CA) towards campaign donors, and now the revelation that House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) earmarked funds for a highway project near real estate he had invested in. All have provided further evidence that not only does the earmark process need a thorough overhaul, but there is urgent need for reform of a campaign finance system ruled by large donors looking for a piece of the $30 billion dollar pie.  If earmarks are a virus, candidates should have the option of a full public financing vaccine.