For some political junkies, election season serves as a religious experience. The candidates have been just as religiously inspired over the last few election cycles, keeping kosher by swearing off of “pork.”

“Pork-barrel spending,” or earmarks, is when representatives or senators set aside federal money for projects that benefit mainly their political supporters.

Although earmarks only represent a slim portion of the national budget ($18.3 billion in 2007, or a little more than the cost of 25 days of fighting in Iraq), they represent a fat plank in each party’s platform. Self-proclaimed reformers from both sides of the aisle point to pork as an example of government mismanagement, ridiculous overspending and borderline corruption.

The 2006 midterm elections swept the Democrats into the majority in Congress on promises of reform. Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Rahm Emmanuel and the rest of the Democratic leadership poked fun at Alaska’s $400 million “Bridge To Nowhere” and promised a more transparent government. Within the first 100 hours of 2007, the new Congress passed a law requiring that earmarks and their sponsors be made public.

With information revealed from the law, Taxpayers for Common Sense recently published a report ranking members of Congress based on the amount of money they earmarked. Since the top three presidential candidates are senators, you can find out where your favorite candidate stands before believing his or her rhetoric.

Starting with the Democratic candidates, whose party accounted for 57 percent of earmarks last year, Sen. Hillary Clinton sent $342 million to her constituents in New York, which places her in the top ten of earmarking senators. Her ranking is surprisingly high because, unlike the other senators in the top ten, she is not a member of the appropriations committee, where most earmarking occurs.

Clinton, who was criticized for appropriating $1 million for a Woodstock Museum (you know — like, the concert), remains largely unapologetic. A spokesperson told The New York Times that Clinton is “very proud to have helped New York-based projects that train nurses, improve our hospitals, help those suffering from 9/11-related health ailments.”

Barack Obama earmarked about $91 million last year, or a quarter of what Clinton appropriated. The Democratic frontrunner, whose major legislative achievement is an ethics reform bill, came under fire for earmarking money to the University of Chicago Medical Centers, his wife’s former employer.

Obama has suggested that government spending become even more transparent than it is today and recommends that Congress create an online database so that the voting public easily learn where their representatives send tax dollars.

The Republican frontrunner, Sen. John McCain has built his political reputation as a maverick partially because of his annual anti-earmark speech. Each year McCain lists examples of ridiculous congressional pork: Once, he pointed out that Congress appropriated funds for bear DNA paternity tests, according to his Web site.

McCain, true to his rhetoric, is one of the few senators to reject earmarking completely.

So as the nation gears up for the general election, you can look forward to the usual finger pointing over pork. But at least you’ll know who the real pigs are.