Appropriations lobbyists are struggling with more paperwork, new spending restrictions and earlier deadlines for requests as lawmakers try to bring home the bacon without getting stung by an embarrassing earmark request.

Lawmakers hope the additional forms and the requests for more information about projects will help them justify the federal funding they’re seeking. But the new standards have led to complaints among lobbyists that they have to spend too much time on the intricate request applications.

Lobbyists help their clients complete funding request forms, which they submit to member offices. The members then review the forms and decide which ones to forward to the relevant appropriations subcommittees as funding requests.

This year, lawmakers appear wary that news accounts of the “Bridge to Nowhere” — a span that would have connected sparsely populated Gravina Island to tiny Ketchikan, Alaska — and other questionable requests have soured the public’s mood on targeted funding requests, which critics deride as pork-barrel spending. With the climate increasingly toxic for pet projects, several members have set up tough restrictions on which programs should be funded.

Rep. Thelma Drake (R-Va.) has established new limits on what she will ask for funding this year, according to a certification document available on her website that accompanies an earmark request form.

“None of the funding requested will be used for a building, program, or project that has been named for a sitting member of Congress. Exceptions for previously named buildings, programs or projects must be fully justified,” according to the certification form.

Earmark-funded projects named after members of Congress proved to be a flashpoint during last year’s budget battle.

The Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service, named after the New York Democrat, and the Lewis Center for Education Research, named after Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.), ranking member of the House Appropriations Committee, were targeted by fiscal conservatives last year.