Tucked inside a current draft of a bill to fund Federal Aviation Administration programs are legislative line items that would direct money to state-specific projects and programs, including $12 million to subsidize flights to 44 rural communities in Alaska, a land transfer for a new airport in Nevada and new airspace testing sites likely in Oregon.

While the line items don’t fit the strict definition of appropriations earmarks, the FAA bill shows how the deft use of legislative language by senators can accomplish the same thing — making sure their home states are taken care of with special projects. Critics call these backdoor earmarks, while defenders say they’re not violating the rules of the ban and are doing an important part of a senator’s job.

Last week, the Senate barred earmarks from spending bills that wind through the Appropriations Committee, but the scramble to keep sending money home raises the question of what is — and isn’t — an earmark.

“The earmark ban is only, as I understand, for the appropriations bills,” Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) told POLITICO. “There are probably, I haven’t looked, there are half a dozen earmarks in this [FAA] bill that we’re on now.”

Longtime earmark critic Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) filed an amendment to the aviation bill that would cut a $200 million fund that covers the $12 million subsidy for 44 Alaska airports.

“The amendment would save $200 million or more by ending subsidies to airlines that serve small airports when there isn’t the market need or volume of consumers,” said McCain spokeswoman Brooke Buchanan.

In a letter to McCain, Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska) urged him to withdraw his proposal, saying the funds are necessary for poor communities that are reachable only by airplane.

“Debating project-specific funding is healthy and necessary,” said Julie Hasquet, a spokeswoman for Begich. “But a program like [Essential Air Service] — which is part of a lifeline in many parts of Alaska — needs to be preserved.”

There’s even a nice benefit in the aviation bill for Nevada, Majority Leader Harry Reid’s home state. The bill includes a federal land transfer around the construction site of a second airport near Las Vegas.

“The FAA legislation allows Ivanpah Airport to plan for the future by utilizing some of its surrounding land to construct flood-control facilities to prepare for a 100-year flood,” Reid spokesman Zac Petkanas said, defending the tailored project.

Reid initially sparred with President Barack Obama over his calls for an earmark ban during the State of the Union, telling the president to “back off.” Last week, Reid agreed to abide by the ban on earmarks in spending bills.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) introduced an amendment to the bill to increase the number of national airspace system testing sites from four to 10, an early stage in fulfilling a promise he made to his home state. Oregon has already scoped out land for aerial drone testing, and Wyden said he’d work with the FAA to get the new sites, according to local news reports.

A spokeswoman for Wyden, Jennifer Hoelzer, defended the proposed increase, saying that “none of the testing sites have been designated yet, and our legislation does not designate where they will be.”

Erich Zimmermann, a senior policy analyst for the anti-earmark group Taxpayers for Common Sense, said the Wyden maneuver is an earmark by another name.

“It’s clearly going to benefit specific areas, but it’s not necessarily an earmark by their rules, by their definition,” said Zimmermann. “The narrow definition in the bill is an attempt to direct the funds where the senator wishes them to go — a practice we will probably see more of in the earmark moratorium as members do their best to direct funds to areas in their own states or districts.”

Pro-earmark senators agree with Zimmermann’s assertion, saying the ban won’t change behavior — just words. And that’s not a bad thing, they argue.

Landrieu told POLITICO there are several other ways senators can deliver money for special projects besides traditional earmarks, for example through federal programs targeted at certain states. Members can also put in requests, known as “phone-marking” or “letter-marking,” with federal agencies.

“Congress has not abandoned the power of the purse, and we’ll still work with agencies and try to help our constituents get answers to their needs,” said Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), who frequently requested earmarks in the past but said he now supports the ban.

Both Alaska senators sent e-mails to their constituents last week letting them know the state will still receive federal money.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) assured voters that “many of the funding sources we rely on in Alaska are formula-driven, not specific earmarks.” Begich said the ban meant he will have to “be creative when it comes to finding ways to fund the priorities of Alaska’s communities.”

How creative lawmakers will have to get will depend on the specifics of the new rules. For now, Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) said he will circulate a definition of “earmark,” but he hasn’t yet.

Obama said he will veto any bill that arrives at his desk with an earmark. But when asked, the White House did not respond to questions about how the president plans to define the term.

Senate Republicans adopted the House GOP conference’s clear definition of an earmark, which includes exceptions for a “statutory or administrative-formula-driven or competitive award process,” a window for plenty of wiggle room.