The decision last week by Democrats in the House of Representatives to end the practice of earmarking money in budget bills for contracts to for-profit companies should be praised.

Since the Democrats control the House, it doesn't matter, except politically, what the Republicans think. The Senate, unfortunately, remains opposed to the change, with its members apparently less sensitive to growing public disapproval of earmarks.

On its face, an earmark seems harmless. A House member or senator will insert language to a bill that directs a government contract be given to a particular company. The fiscal 2010 budget included more than 1,000 earmarks -- no-bid, non-compete contracts -- for private firms. It may well be that the recipient company is in the legislator's district, so he will, in effect, be bringing home the bacon to his constituents, with the idea that the action will commend him to the voters in future elections.

One problem is that the contract earmarked for the company is frequently preceded or followed by a sizable political contribution to the lawmaker from a political action committee or individual connected to the firm. Unfortunately, the happy relationship between the company and the legislator is funded by the taxpayers -- even though the company may not, in fact, be the most capable supplier of the product or service being purchased with federal dollars.

The question of which firms get the contracts has frequently been determined by politics, not merit. Senior congressmen, like the late Rep. John P. Murtha, have gotten first slice at the pie, based on seniority or position in Congress. Various government watchdog groups considered the Democrat from Johnstown "king of the earmarks." Second dibs go to members from the majority party facing difficult reelections who need to be seen delivering to their districts so they can hold on to their jobs.

While House earmarks to for-profit companies have been abolished, lawmakers will still be able to give them to nonprofits and municipalities. Even so, the ending of private earmarks should be applauded. The public's interest should be better served, and the corrupting relationship between campaign contributions and federal contracts for companies should be disrupted, if not eliminated.

That is change, and unequivocal reform. We urge the Senate to go along.

Cartoonist Rob Rogers does "Rob's Rough," an early look at his work and his creative process, exclusively at PG+, a members-only web site of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Our introduction to PG+ gives you all the details.