Skip to Content
Streetsblog USA home
Streetsblog USA home
Log In
Federal Funding

Could Transportation Spending Become a Core Conservative Value?

Sen. James Inhofe has always said that, although he’s one of the most conservative members of the Senate, he’s a “big spender” on two things: national security and infrastructure. An influential conservative group appears to be humming the same tune.

The ACU's Alberto Cardenas has had a big-spender conversion, thanks to deep-pocketed friends in the transportation industry. Photo: ##http://univisionnews.tumblr.com/post/17390099735/al-cardenas-cpac-american-conservative-union##Univision##

The American Conservative Union is the 50-year-old organization behind the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) and a highly influential rating system for members of Congress. The group’s new effort, the American Strength Program, is dedicated to lobbying Congress to increase spending – words they must have trouble getting their mouths around – on transportation and defense. Their interest in transportation appears to stem from their belief that transportation helps “foster personal freedom” by “facilitating a robust market economy.”

“While it is part of our heritage to question the role and size of government,” reads the group’s proposal, “defense and transportation infrastructure activities are national in scope and require federal leadership and investment.” The proposal was published last week by the New York Times, which broke the story.

The ACU plans to build conservative leadership around the issue to educate Congress and the public, and it plans to start including infrastructure votes in its legislative scorecards. That’s a huge shift – for the “gold standard” of conservative accountability for lawmakers to start rewarding votes for spending and punishing excessive attention to deficits.

This group would have come down harshly on House Republicans in 2011, for example, when they tried to cut transportation spending by a third to keep expenditures in line with revenues. Despite the fact that their actions were motivated by a desire for fiscal conservatism, those lawmakers would have gotten dinged on their conservative ratings for such a move.

If the ACU is successful in reaching out to like-minded groups on this issue, it could change the definition of fiscal conservatism when it comes to transportation. Defense has always been a major exception to conservatives’ desire to cut government spending. As the Times notes, in past years, transportation often got a pass too, with lawmakers of all political stripes lining up to vote for pork-laden infrastructure bills as a way to curry favor. The ACU is trying to make transportation spending something more than a guilty indulgence fueled by parochial (and political) interests. The group wants to reframe robust transportation investment as a true conservative value – even for Tea Partiers, whose style is to take no prisoners when it comes to budget cuts.

The draft proposal for the new effort doesn't specify what kind of transportation infrastructure the group plans to fight for. Sometimes even conservatives with a penchant for funding roads and bridges draw the line at transit and active transportation investment. Inhofe himself is Exhibit A for that approach.

It may come as no surprise that industry is bankrolling the American Strength Program. Noting that they've "often had trouble convincing our conservative friends that transportation infrastructure is a valuable investment," American Road and Transportation Builders Association vice president Richard Juliano is raising money among transportation lobbyists and executives for the new effort. He hopes that a group with the ACU's right-wing street cred will succeed where the trade group has failed.

But the quid-pro-quo nature of the ACU's new zeal for transportation spending may doom their outreach to other conservatives from the start. The Times quotes leaders from the Campaign for Liberty and FreedomWorks, who bash the big-infrastructure concept. They may be right to question the ACU's motives: It's unclear how much industry groups are paying them to launch this effort and whether that's a primary motive behind it, but the Times notes that the ACU has sold policy positions for cash before.

Stay in touch

Sign up for our free newsletter

More from Streetsblog USA

Monday’s Headlines Are Dragging Their Feet

The Trump administration claims the Biden administration left them with a backlog — but they've actually been far slower at getting transportation money to states than their predecessors, a new analysis finds.

July 14, 2025

These U.S. Communities’ So-Called ‘Complete Streets’ Policies Don’t Even Deserve the Name

Any city can call itself a "Complete Streets" champion. But not all of them are walking the walk — and if they don't, a top organization says they'll no longer give them a platform on its esteemed "best of" ranking.

July 14, 2025

Communities Rally To Reclaim Streets From ICE Terror

"This is an attack on Los Angeles. This is an attack on California. On all of us."

July 11, 2025

Friday Video: The London Neighborhood Where Bikes Outnumber Cars

...and how they got to that impressive milestone.

July 11, 2025

Friday’s Headlines Battle Galactus

Like the Marvel supervillain, U.S. interstate highway system seems to eat up everything in his path. A new book explores how to stop it.

July 11, 2025

New Report Shows Pedestrian Fatalities Drop — But Experts Say Not Enough

The Governors Highway Safety Association report showed a 4 percent drop in the number of pedestrian deaths last year, putting a slow on a dangerous trend — but advocates say the drop isn't nearly big enough.

July 11, 2025
See all posts