Posted on 01/17/2007 6:46:53 AM PST by mathprof
Presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) made his first misstep a few days ago when he joined only a handful of Democrats in opposing a Senate reform banning the increasingly widespread practice of legislators hiring their family members on their campaign or PAC payrolls. Obama has not heard the last of this vote. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), who opposes wives cashing in on their husbands’ positions, voted righteously in favor of the reform and will probably use the Illinois senator’s vote against him in the presidential primaries.
When a legislator hires his or her spouse on the campaign or PAC payroll, he is effectively converting contributions to his campaign committee into personal income that flows into the family’s checking account, blurring the line between contribution and bribe.
In the past, senators and House members routinely hired their spouses and other family members on their public payrolls. In the early 1940s, for example, Harry S. Truman hired his wife, Bess, to work on his Senate staff. She got $2,500 a year in salary at a time when senators themselves only earned $8,500. But nepotism on the public payroll is now banned. So inventive congressmen and senators have filled the void by hiring family on their campaign or PAC payrolls.
Hiring family members and paying them with campaign donations is, if anything, more pernicious than doing so with public funds. Where tax money is involved, the sin is against the taxpayer for wasting his funds. But where campaign contributions are involved, the congressman is profiting personally from the largesse of special interest donors. In plain English, that’s a payoff.
There is, of course, a certain hypocrisy in the Senate action since very few senators, in fact, hire their families on their payrolls. It is, though, widely practiced in the House of Representatives, where 30 members have their families on their payrolls. But senators are much less likely to do so. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who voted “present” on the reform, hired her son, Douglas, a lobbyist, to manage her PAC, paying him $130,000 over a four-year period. Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, then a Democrat, hired his son, Matthew, for $34,000 and his daughter, Rebecca, for $36,000 to work on his 2004 presidential campaign.
So the congressional ethics reform of 2007 boils down to this: The House banned the use of corporate jets but the Senate did not, even though senators are more likely to avail themselves of the luxury than is the average House member. The Senate banned hiring family members but the House did not, even though House members are far more likely to hire their significant others to work for them.
Obama’s inexplicable pro-nepotism vote may have been cast in sympathy with Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.), whose hiring of his wife, Sandi, to work on his campaign prompted an FEC ruling allowing the practice. Jackson might be afraid that the Senate action will catalyze a similar reform in the House, which could cut way back on his disposable family income.
But whatever the reason for his vote, Obama has screwed up. The public will not take kindly to a senator who pledged to clean up the political process voting to allow wives to be hired with special-interest campaign funds.
The FEC required, in allowing the practice, that the contract for the services of the family member contain the language customarily used between campaign committees and consultants. The FEC also ruled that any payment to a family member in excess of the fair market value of the services would be considered to be a “personal use of campaign funds.”
But, as usual, the FEC has missed the point. Any payment from campaign money to a spouse is, in fact, an appropriation of campaign funds by the member of Congress for his own personal use, however camouflaged or disguised. The Senate was right to ban the practice and the House should follow suit.
After Jeb...Chelsea should be old enough.
You wish. A significant percentage of the so-called "public" is too stupid & apathetic when it comes to corruption & hypocrisy. I give you William Jefferson of Louisiana as a prime example.
He used the name Barry in high school, so that's what i call him now.
Much ado about nothing. Hillary won't say jack about this imo. We'll see.
Notice how the radical left attacks and tries to destroy anyone who gets in its way, even more moderate lefties?
I don't think so. Osama Obama has NO chance to be POTUS. Ever. Why? Because the Dem party underestimates the racism within it's own party, that's why. Millions of the neo-liberals absolutely will not vote for him because of his race.
Yawn. This will be completely lost in a sea of voter ignorance.
He was interviewed last night on Cavuto's show and said, "for sure Hillary will be the Dem's nominee and will be the next president."
ROFL ... here we have the opposite of an Azconservative post roping us in with a fictional story that sounds real. Now we have a real story that sounds fictional!
We could do much worse than Jeb, and probably will.
"How about wives working as or for lobbyists?"
Now you've quit preaching and done gone to meddling.
Not only can MRS BILL CLINTON *not* hire Bubba as a consultant, advisor, strategist, spokesman---she can't *FIRE* him either!
Best line: Hillary voting against wives cashing in on hubby's political position . . .
This is exactly why MRS BILL CLINTON will not be able to use this vote against Obama. No one believes that she hasn't cashed in on hubby's political position, NOR that hubby no longer "works for her" and her campaign.
lol.
She is a senator because of her husbands"position", and I don't mean president.
Still lol.
And doesn't The Sinkmeister continue to advise her, work on her campaign, gain financially from her political activities, including fundraising, and on and on?
When MRS BILL CLINTON comes out and says that Bill has been banished from all of the above activities, then she might have some credibility on the issue.
Precisely.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.