Well when it comes to bringing home federal money known as earmarks, one new Jersey congressman appears to be far above the rest in steering dollars back to his district, an NJ spotlight News analysis found.

Representative Jeff Van Drew won more money for local projects than any of his other state colleagues, but consistently votes against the bills that include the funding.

Our Washington, DC correspondent, Ben Hulac, is with me to explain.

So then you start following the money.

And what you find is that Congressman Van Drew has actually been highly successful in bringing money back to his district, and yet it doesn't quite make sense.

Explain to me what you found.

Right.

So Congress, about three years ago, brought back these things called earmarks, which had a bit of a bad reputation.

There was a scandal, famously, with a California congressman who got here, marks for a defense contractor, but back pivoting to new Jersey.

I looked at every earmark that has gone home to the state in these three years, and that's about, it's more than $800 million.

And Mr. Van Drew brought home a big chunk of that, about 92 million, even though he voted against all of the legislation that contained that money.

So he nearly got as much as Cory Booker and former Senator Bob Menendez, which is important context, because the senators really are responsible for the homes of the whole state.

And so they're bringing back earmarks for everyone across new Jersey, whereas Van Drew is just doing that for the second district.

And so why was he voting against these spending bills that included money for his home turf?

What was his explanation for that?

And what were some of the projects?

Right.

It sounds sort of counterintuitive, to vote against money that would go back to your voters, to the people who elected you.

I caught up with him maybe six weeks or so in the hall and asked him this, and his explanation was, hey, look, we passed these giant spending bills.

They are chock full of things, some of which I like.

Some of the things, some of which I do not like.

And that's not going to stop me from getting earmarks in my, for my home district.

But ultimately, he said, I just couldn't vote for these pieces of legislation.

But it does seem remarkable that despite the fact that, as you report, he's voted against each of the bills that contained his own earmarks, he's still far and away.

Bringing back more money than the rest of his colleagues.

Who else was there?

Anyone else rather even close to clawing back money for their district?

Just.

Just on earmarks.

Alone?

Really?

No.

Booker and Menendez, as I mentioned, are in the same ballpark.

More than 90 million over the past three years.

And the next, new Jersey member who brought back, brought back to their district and a figure even close to what Van Drew did was Frank Pallone.

North up, in the sixth district.

He brought home about 82 million, but then there's a sharp drop off, and other members were brought back about 40, 42 million, roughly, and some even less to their home districts.

There really is no hard and fast policy or structure for how earmarks are divvied up.

And it's it's sort of a Wild West mentality.

You submit your requests for earmarks as a lawmaker, and maybe you get them.

Maybe you don't.

Some people prioritize smaller earmarks.

Others go for a big earmark or two.

And, to your other point, Bri, this is there's an adage, a phrase that's become sort of law in Washington from, former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, which is vote no and take the dough.

And she used that to pillory Republicans.

But I should point out Democrats do this, too.

This is across party, across chamber.

People will get money for their home state or district and then vote against the bills that make that money possible.

Ben's full story is online.

And of course, there are a couple of charts where you can go and check out, where your representative filed for earmarks and how much they actually got for the district.

Ben Hulac, thanks so much.

Great reporting.

Thank you.