I was amazed when I heard this. I was always aware of the antitrust exemption. It shows, though, how rich people can benefit from welfare, and how silly things can be inserted into otherwise acceptable legislation. After all, if anyone had voted against this in 1966, they would have been accused of being against the depreciation that businesses rely on to make sure they have money to replace equipment. Now days, similar pet projects are often tacked on to things people wouldn't oppose, like medical coverage for military troops.

In my home state, Michigan, we have a constitutional provision that bans this. It provides that legislation can have only a single purpose, and the title of the legislation must reveal the purpose. You cannot put a spending allocation for a local swimming pool into a law to prohibit theft from a library.

If the federal government had a similar provision, the process would be open for all to see.