As Arlen Specter headed into the Senate chamber for a recent vote on an amendment by Jim DeMint, he paused for a quick briefing from one of his aides.

“It would take away your discretion,” the aide said to Specter, the top Republican on the Appropriations Labor-HHS-Education Subcommittee.

That was all the the Pennsylvania Republican needed to hear.

“Oh, I’m against that,” Specter said, and calmly strolled into the chamber to cast his vote against DeMint’s April 25 amendment.

An anti-earmark campaign spearheaded by DeMint, R-S.C., and Tom Coburn, R-Okla., once caused heartache among its opponents who grappled with how to explain each vote for local projects. But as votes against anti-earmark efforts have become increasingly routine, they have attracted less and less attention.

So far this year, DeMint has forced half a dozen votes to limit the use of earmarks or strip specific ones from bills, and he has twice initiated unanimous consent requests to tighten Senate restrictions on the practice of earmarking.

He loses almost every time, and with every swing-and-a-miss, DeMint’s opposition relaxes a little more.

DeMint’s amendments have become so routine that foes don’t worry anymore about whether he might make it harder for them to run the chamber.

The April 25 vote was on an amendment DeMint offered to a math and science education authorization bill (S 761). The amendment would have created a point of order against earmarks in subsequent legislation appropriating funds for programs covered by the authorization bill.

With appropriators like Specter adamantly opposed to any new restrictions on their powers, and most members of Congress eager for every opportunity to target funds for home-state projects, DeMint’s amendment was easily defeated, 22-71.

“He’s played out the passion on this issue,” Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin said after the amendment failed.

Earmark disclosure requirements were added to the ethics and lobbying overhaul bill passed in January (S 1), and three Senate committees have voluntarily imposed new earmark procedures for the bills they handle, and according to Jim Manley, spokesman for Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., more committees are likely to follow suit.

But the ethics and lobbying bill has yet to see a House counterpart, let alone get to conference, so there is no chance of having a new standard on earmarking for the whole Senate any time soon.

DeMint dislikes earmarks because he believes the agencies that run federal programs should decide how money is spent based on merit or according to formulas.

He now says he was naive to expect the earmark standards in the ethics and lobbying bill to quickly become law.

“They don’t have any intention to go to conference,” he said.

Ross Baker, a political science professor at Rutgers University, said DeMint has chosen a particularly steep hill to climb by going after a process that helps the Senate operate.

“There is a kind of core of procedures that are so central to the political survival of individual members and so necessary to building majority votes that they just won’t be relinquished,” Baker said.

For instance, the emergency appropriations conference report (HR 1591 — H Rept 110-107), cleared the Senate Thursday with majority support built in part with the inclusion of funding for a children’s health insurance program, hurricane relief and base realignment and closures.

Going after the practice of earmarking funds as a wasteful and corruptive influence is not a new idea. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., took up the cause more than 10 years ago, and he is generally supportive of DeMint’s more aggressive style.

But like DeMint, McCain has accomplished little more than irritating his Senate colleagues.

Doing away with earmarks entirely — DeMint’s ultimate goal — would take years to accomplish, congressional experts say.

“You do need people who will force the issue, but they often don’t get what they want for a very long time,” said Boston University history professor Julian E. Zelizer.

Zelizer points to the experience of Hubert H. Humphrey, D-Minn., who tackled an equally entrenched Senate practice.

Humphrey (1949-64; 1971-78) decided in the 1950s that the power of the filibuster had become too great and embarked on an effort to set new limits. Those limits came, but not until 1975, when the number of votes required to cut off debate was sliced from 66 to 60.

“The only way you can break through is to keep doing it until people notice,” said Minority Whip Trent Lott, who, like Specter, voted against DeMint’s earmark amendment to the math and science education bill. “There’s a method to his madness.”

Richard M. Burr, R-N.C., a friend of DeMint and a supporter of his anti-earmark efforts, said those who see earmarks as a corruptive influence are in it for the long haul.

“There will be a day when people realize that we don’t go away,” Burr said.

In the meantime, Durbin and others say DeMint may be hurting his ability to have an impact in other areas.

“Sen. DeMint is a one-issue senator at this moment,” said Durbin, D-Ill.

Although DeMint isn’t happy with his progress so far, his efforts have not been entirely thwarted.

On March 29, he won overwhelming support to slice an earmark for spinach crop handlers and growers from the emergency supplemental spending bill.

And on April 17, Appropriations Chairman Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., announced that his panel would require senators to certify to the committee that they have no financial conflicts of interest with regard to the spending projects they propose.

Byrd’s action was in response to an effort by DeMint — which appeared to be gathering momentum — to immediately change Senate rules and require greater transparency in the earmarking process.

DeMint’s effort was unsuccessful. And since no committee rules or full Senate rules were changed by Byrd’s actions, the new procedures are not enforceable on the floor.