By Editorial Staff, Orlando Sentinel, June 20, 2007
20 Jun 2007 // With spending on congressional campaigns going up every election cycle, the question naturally arises about what candidates might be promising in return for contributions. But another question -- Where does all that money go? -- also can pose troubling ethical implications.
A new report from a government-watchdog group shows that some of the cash is ending up in the pockets of spouses and other family members of candidates. While such payments are not necessarily illegal, they reflect poorly on a Congress still reeling from a wave of scandals. Lawmakers need to curb abuses in campaign payments to family members, just as they have targeted other dubious practices for reform.
The report from Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a left-leaning watchdog group, found that 72 House members had funneled more than $5 million in campaign funds to family members or their employers for work done over the past six years. In the most egregious example, California Democrat Zoe Lofgren's campaign paid her husband's two companies more than $340,000.
By that scale, the payments made by the four Central Florida House members on CREW's list -- Republicans Dave Weldon, John Mica and Ric Keller, and Democrat Corrine Brown -- were small, or at least indirect. Even accepting that those payments were for legitimate work, it's hard not to see them as another case of Capitol Hill insiders cashing in. That way of doing business -- especially when hidden -- undermines trust and confidence in Congress.
Two House members, California Democrat Adam Schiff and Delaware Republican Mike Castle, have introduced a worthy proposal to bar congressional candidates from paying their spouses with campaign funds. Candidates also would have to disclose other relatives on their campaign payrolls.
Because the personal finances of husbands and wives are intertwined, candidates whose campaigns pay their spouses are essentially transferring that money into their own bank accounts. That's reason enough to prohibit the practice.
An argument can be made for continuing to permit payments to other relatives for campaign work, provided they get no more than the going rate. But it's wrong to expect the public to conduct a major research effort, as CREW did, to uncover the relationships. Lawmakers also need to specify what jobs their family members carry out beyond "consulting," which tells the public almost nothing.
Members of Congress are paid a handsome salary of $165,200 a year, with generous health and pension benefits. They don't need to raid their campaign accounts for even more money.